Gupta, J. - (1.) These are four appeals brought on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Karnataka. The question which according to the High Court needs to be decided by this Court was framed as follows:"Whether in the personality test of candidates for selection to public appointments, the selecting authority should allot separate marks for each of the seven qualities required to be judged in a candidate or whether it is permissible for the selecting authority to allot marks in a lump in each personality test." Considering the facts of these cases which we will presently state, the question seems to have been framed little too broadly, the Karnataka Public Service Commission (called the Commission hereinafter) by its notification dated September 7, 1972 called for applications for the combined competitive examinations under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II Posts Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966. In response to this notification, the respondents in these appeals along with others applied for selection. The Commission held a written examination followed by a personality test as provided by Rule 9 of the Rules and sent a list of 30 candidates whom they selected for appointment as class I gazetted probationers, and another list of 88 candidates for appointment as class II gazetted probationers. The manner in which the personality test is to be held is laid down in Part IV of Schedule II to Rules, the relevant portion of which is as follows: "Personality Test carrying a maximum marks of 200 for all services. The candidates will be interviewed by the Commission who will have before them their particulars such as qualifications, experience, age, etc. They will be asked questions of general interest, the object of the viva voce is to assess the personal suitability of the candidates for the service or services for which they have applied. The qualities to be judged at the time to viva voce are the mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, variety and depth of interest, ability for social cohesion and leadership and intellectual depth of the candidates."
(2.) Five of the respondents in the four different appeals who were, not selected, M. Farida, P. V. Mohan, B. R. Kulkarni, L. V. Dharmayat and M. R. Devappa had applied for the posts of gazetted probationers class II, two of them, Farida and Mohan, were also applicants for the class I post. They filed writ petitions in the Karnataka High Court, Farida and Mohan jointly, and each of the three others separately, challenging the selections made. Their common grievance was that the personality test held by the Commission was invalid as the selection committee did not award separate marks for each of the seven qualities which were required to be judged in the candidates at the test. Admittedly, the selection committee did not allot separate marks for each of the specified qualities, but awarded a block mark to each candidate in assessing his personality with reference to these qualities. The argument for the writ petitioners in the High Court was that the personality test as required under the Rules was an objective test based upon seven factors or criteria, and, therefore, it was essential that separate marks were allotted in respect of each such factor or criterion. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of the Mysore High Court, D. G. Viswanath v. Chief Secretary, Government of Mysore, (1963) 2 Mys L.J. 302, and the decision of this Court in A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1971) 2 SCR 430, which appears to affirm the view expressed in Viswanath's case (supra). On behalf of the State of Karnataka it was contended that the seven qualities referred to in Part IV of Schedule II were merely different facets of the integrated personality of a candidate which could not easily be demarcated from one another, and therefore, awarding a block mark on an appraisal of the personality of the candidate as a whole was the correct method. The High Court found that there was "considerable force in the contention of the learned Government advocates", but felt that in view of the decision in Periakaruppan's case (supra) the Writ Petitions must succeed, and by a common Judgment allowed the petitions directing the State of Karnataka and the Commission to hold a fresh personality test. These appeals arise out of these four writ petitions.
(3.) In Periakaruppan's case (supra), this Court was considering a case of admission to certain medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. In that case the selection committees were authorised to give a maximum of 75 marks at the interview on the basis of the following tests: 1. Sports or National Cadet Corps activities; 2. Extra curricular special services; 3. General physical condition and endurance; 4. General ability; and 5. Aptitude. Periakaruppan's case (supra) came up on a writ petition before this Court. The petitioners in that case challenged the selections, inter alia on the ground that the selections were manipulated by the Government. This Court came to the conclusion that the allegations of mala fide had not been established, but by its Judgment and order dated September 23, 1970, directed the State of Tamil Nadu to constitute a separate committee for selection on the view that as the previous selection committee had not divided the 'interview' marks under the aforesaid five different heads but awarded marks in a lump, the interview was vitiated. This Court accordingly ordered that the Committee should allot separate marks under the five heads mentioned in the rule. Periakaruppan's case (supra) approved the decision of the Mysore High Court in Vishwanath's case (supra). The Mysore High Court had held that it could not be said that the Government had conferred an unguided power on the selection committee and therefore, "in the absence of specific allocation of marks for each head, it must be presumed that the Government considered that each of the heads ...... as being equal in importance to any other," and that it must be inferred that the intention of the Government was that each one of these heads should carry equal marks. It appears that Periakaruppan came to this Court a second time challenging the selections made by the new selection committee constituted pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23-9-1970; one of the grounds of challenge was that despite the direction in the earlier Judgment, the selection committee did not distribute the "interview" marks equally among the five heads. The second writ petition made by Periakaruppan also succeeded and this Court again quashed the impugned selections, (1971) 3 SCR 449.;